• # Thread: You Love Xei

1. ## You Love Xei

 Theorem: Everybody on DreamViews loves Xei Proof: Proposition: any group of n people on DV have the same opinion of me. Let's proceed by first assuming that the proposition is true for n - 1; i.e., any group of n - 1 people on DV have the same opinion of me. Apply this to two groups, for example, person 1 through to person n - 1, and person 2 through to person n. It clearly follows that all of these people, person 1 through to person n, must have the same opinion of me. In other words, if the proposition is true for n - 1 people, it must be true for n people. The proposition is clearly true for n = 1; any group of 1 person on DV has the same opinion of me as anybody else in the group, because a person must have the same opinion as themselves. Hence, as the truth of n - 1 implies the truth of n, as it is true for 1, it must be true for 2, and hence it must be true for 3, and hence... and hence, it must be true for everybody in the forum. Now that I have proved the proposition that everybody on DV has the same opinion of me, all that remains is to observe that at least one person, namely myself, loves me; and hence I have proved my theorem that everybody on DreamViews loves Xei.

2.  I'd really like to disprove you here, but I would have to be lying.

3.  If everybody on DV loved you, then everybody on DV would love you. However n < total number of members. Noogah doesn't like you. Sorry.

4.  I'd really like to disprove you here, but I would have to be lying. Spread the love! I have a (very) similar proof that everybody loves dajo, in fact! I've also discovered a proof that everybody thinks Noogah is an embarrassment to himself, which is again strikingly similar; but you can't argue with pure logic, after all. If everybody on DV loved you, then everybody on DV would love you. However n < total number of members. Noogah doesn't like you. Sorry. But if there n - 1 other forum members who love me, and 1 Noogah, as I've proved above, it follows that n members love me, and hence Noogah does too!

5.  my mind asplodededed from trying to compute this, but I still love you

6.   Nevarmind that last part. I do not hate anybawdy. Apply this to two groups, for example, person 1 through to person n - 1, and person 2 through to person n. Those two groups would just have to happen to be sharing the same opinion. The opinion of people 1 through n-1 may not be the same as person number n, in which case you cannot apply your assumption to two groups.

7.  Mm, that doesn't really make sense. The assumption is that P(n - 1) is true, and P is specifically about any arbitrary group you choose. So, if you have a population of people named as follows: 1, 2, 3, ..., n - 2, n - 1, n Then it follows from P(n - 1) that persons 1 to n - 1 (A) all have the same opinion as each other, and that persons 2 to n (B) all have the same opinion as each other. It cannot be true, as you say, that the opinion of people 1 through n - 1 need not be the same as person n, because the opinion of people 1 through n - 1 is the same as the opinion of people 2 through n - 1 (as they're in group A), and the opinion of person n is the same as the opinion of people 2 through n - 1 (as they're in group B), and if the opinion of people 1 through n - 1 is different from the opinion of person n, then this implies that the opinion of people 2 through n - 1 is different from the opinion of people 2 through n - 1, which is clearly a contradiction. The only assumption is that P(n - 1) is true. It's shown above that this implies that P(n) is true. You are right to highlight that it is an assumption, but as I covered in my proof, it is in fact patently true for P(1), and hence true for P(2), P(3), and so on for any number.

8.  Is this logic or psychology?

9.  Oh, that makes sense. But, Proposition: any group of n people on DV have the same opinion of me. Is n people the total number of people on DV, or a number less than or equal to the total number? Second, can you explain how using a proposition and an assumption in a proof makes sense?

10.  I do not love you, no matter how much you say I do. Fail.

11.  Originally Posted by Xei Theorem: Everybody on DreamViews loves Xei Proof: Proposition: any group of n people on DV have the same opinion of me. Let's proceed by first assuming that the proposition is true for n - 1; i.e., any group of n - 1 people on DV have the same opinion of me. Apply this to two groups, for example, person 1 through to person n - 1, and person 2 through to person n. It clearly follows that all of these people, person 1 through to person n, must have the same opinion of me. In other words, if the proposition is true for n - 1 people, it must be true for n people. The proposition is clearly true for n = 1; any group of 1 person on DV has the same opinion of me as anybody else in the group, because a person must have the same opinion as themselves. Hence, as the truth of n - 1 implies the truth of n, as it is true for 1, it must be true for 2, and hence it must be true for 3, and hence... and hence, it must be true for everybody in the forum. Now that I have proved the proposition that everybody on DV has the same opinion of me, all that remains is to observe that at least one person, namely myself, loves me; and hence I have proved my theorem that everybody on DreamViews loves Xei. Jesus. If there was ever anything I'd read, that made me understand how much I hate mathematics, this would be it. Lol. But, is it not true that you didn't prove that "Every Person" on DV has the same opinion of you? Rather, you simply proved that every group of "n person" has the same opinion of you? And as far as I can see, you haven't proven n to equal anything more than 1. The technicality it looks like you are working off of is that each (individual) person does have "the same" opinion of you. (The "same" opinion as his/herself). So any entire group of just 1 person on DV, is going to be at a consensus. Correct? (Couldn't bear to read anymore than the OP, yet. My mind is already fried. And if I'm way off, just disregard it. I've been chiefing all morning. )

12.  Is n people the total number of people on DV, or a number less than or equal to the total number? Second, can you explain how using a proposition and an assumption in a proof makes sense? n is a symbol. The proof shows that the proposition is true if I replace n with any natural number. Propositions and assumptions are made in proofs all the time. Here I have proved the proposition by 1. Showing that if you assume the proposition is true for n - 1, it follows that it must be true for n. 2. Showing that the proposition is indeed true for 1; and hence by step 1., it must also be true for 2, and hence for 3, and so on, for any number. This method is called the principle of mathematical induction. For example, consider the statement 'the sum of all numbers from 1 to n is 1/2*n*(n + 1)', i.e. P(n) <=> sum from 1 to n = 1/2*n*(n + 1) if we assume P(n) is true, by adding n + 1 to both sides, we obtain (sum from 1 to n) + (n + 1) = sum from n to n + 1 = 1/2*n*(n + 1) + (n + 1) = 1/2*(n + 1)(n + 2) which is P(n + 1). So, we have proved that if P(n) is true, P(n + 1) must be true. Now consider P(1), which states that The sum of all numbers from 1 to 1 = 1 = 1/2*1*(1 + 1) = 1 Which is true. So P(1) is true, and hence P(2) is true, and hence by induction P(n) is true for all n. But, is it not true that you didn't prove that "Every Person" on DV has the same opinion of you? Rather, you simply proved that every group of "n person" has the same opinion of you? And as far as I can see, you haven't proven n to equal anything more than 1. The technicality it looks like you are working off of is that each (individual) person does have "the same" opinion of you. (The "same" opinion as his/herself). So any entire group of just 1 person on DV, is going to be at a consensus. Correct? The key is that I've proved the truth of n implies the truth of n + 1. In other words, because it is true for 1, which it patently is, it must be true for 2, 3, and so on; n can be any positive whole number, so there is no problem in making it the number of members on DV. I do not love you, no matter how much you say I do. Fail. I didn't say it. I logically proved it. You fail. :V

13.  Originally Posted by Xei I didn't say it. I logically proved it. You fail. :V Then your logic is fail, because as I said, I do not love you. Honestly all this is doing is proving that you cannot trust science and mathematics! Now my whole world is falling apart!

14.  Why wouldn't your equation be true for everyone? So because your mathematical equation states that i love you means indeed the equation can't possibly be wrong? I think you should do some "field tests" on this and then report your findings...

15.  ...is this supposed to be a joke.

16.  Xei, you seem to have the skills of a politician. I think you could use math fallacies like those and convince masses of people that you can end any social problem you bring up.

17.  What fallacy? :0 The steps all seem to follow if you ask me. Honestly all this is doing is proving that you cannot trust science and mathematics! No this is demonstrating the high degree of rigour which is required to be able to do mathematics. I don't see any point in arguing to be honest; as you all have the same opinion as me, it follows that you all think my proof is infallible, so any objections you make are just you lot joking around.

18.  Originally Posted by Xei Theorem: Everybody on DreamViews loves Xei Proof: Proposition: any group of n people on DV have the same opinion of me. Let's proceed by first assuming that the proposition is true for n - 1; i.e., any group of n - 1 people on DV have the same opinion of me. Apply this to two groups, for example, person 1 through to person n - 1, and person 2 through to person n. It clearly follows that all of these people, person 1 through to person n, must have the same opinion of me. In other words, if the proposition is true for n - 1 people, it must be true for n people. The proposition is clearly true for n = 1; any group of 1 person on DV has the same opinion of me as anybody else in the group, because a person must have the same opinion as themselves. Hence, as the truth of n - 1 implies the truth of n, as it is true for 1, it must be true for 2, and hence it must be true for 3, and hence... and hence, it must be true for everybody in the forum. Now that I have proved the proposition that everybody on DV has the same opinion of me, all that remains is to observe that at least one person, namely myself, loves me; and hence I have proved my theorem that everybody on DreamViews loves Xei. Theorem: Everybody on DreamViews does not love Xei Proof: Proposition: any group of n people on DV have the same opinion of Xei. Let's proceed by first assuming that the proposition is true for n - 1; i.e., any group of n - 1 people on DV have the same opinion of Xei. Apply this to two groups, for example, person 1 through to person n - 1, and person 2 through to person n. It clearly follows that all of these people, person 1 through to person n, must have the same opinion of Xei. In other words, if the proposition is true for n - 1 people, it must be true for n people. The proposition is clearly true for n = 1; any group of 1 person on DV has the same opinion of Xei as anybody else in the group, because a person must have the same opinion as themselves. Hence, as the truth of n - 1 implies the truth of n, as it is true for 1, it must be true for 2, and hence it must be true for 3, and hence... and hence, it must be true for everybody in the forum. Now that I have proved the proposition that everybody on DV has the same opinion of Xei, all that remains is to observe that at least one person, namely Aquanina, does not love Xei; and hence I have proved my theorem that everybody on DreamViews does not love Xei.

19.  Yeah I already did that joke. Although to be honest I don't think either you or I can speak for Noogah. The only person whose opinions I am 100% sure of are mine, and I know for sure that I love myself, and hence by my flawless argument, everybody loves me. An interesting corollary of this fact is that Noogah loves me too, so as I cautioned, you were indeed misplaced in your opinion of him.

20.  Originally Posted by Xei Yeah I already did that joke. Although to be honest I don't think either you or I can speak for Noogah. The only person whose opinions I am 100% sure of are mine, and I know for sure that I love myself, and hence by my flawless argument, everybody loves me. An interesting corollary of this fact is that Noogah loves me too, so as I cautioned, you were indeed misplaced in your opinion of him. I edited it because we have testimony from Aquanina. Your case has been dismissed, and you are hereby required to pay all court costs for the opposing parties.

21.  She was lying. I can't 100% trust anybody but myself, so it's only a proof when I apply my opinions. And said proof implies that Nina does indeed love me. I guess she's just shy or something.

22.  Originally Posted by Xei She was lying. I can't 100% trust anybody but myself, so it's only a proof when I apply my opinions. And said proof implies that Nina does indeed love me. I guess she's just shy or something. Can you mathematically prove that I should trust your account of your own emotions more than I can trust her account of her own emotions? Also, if n - 1 = 1, doesn't n = 2, which is 1 more than the number of people who love (or don't love) you?

23.  Can you mathematically prove that I should trust your account of your own emotions more than I can trust her account of her own emotions? Nah. Also, if n - 1 = 1, doesn't n = 2, which is 1 more than the number of people who love (or don't love) you? I've proved that if P is true for n - 1, then P is true for n. In other words, if it's true for some number, then it is true for the next number. I've also proved P is true for 1. As we can put n - 1 = 1, then P is true for n - 1, and hence is true for n, which as you say is clearly 2. You then iterate this process to generate any number you want. Basic mathematical induction. (Check out my reply to Invader; also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_induction is quite good).

24.  You defined n - 1 as the number of members who love you. Didn't you? Then n = 1 more than the number of members who love you. Is that correct? If we accept your proposition that you love yourself, which we can only do with blind faith, then we arrive at the conclusion that n - 1 > 1. So far, we have no reason to conclude n - 1 is greater than 1, so we are only convinced that n - 1 = 1. In that case, n = 2, but n is just 1 more than n -1 and has no other significance. So how do we get to n - 1 = number of members? This is where you touched on the topic... Originally Posted by Xei Hence, as the truth of n - 1 implies the truth of n, as it is true for 1, it must be true for 2, and hence it must be true for 3, and hence... Those are hypotheticals. You, with the factor of our blind faith involved, showed that n - 1 > 1 but only proved that n = 1. In other words, you proved that n - 1 could be greater than 1, not that it actually is. When you discussed how the statements would apply to 2 and 3 and so forth, you did not prove that n - 1 is 2 or more. You talked about how things would hypothetically work if it were the case. Thus, you did not prove that n = total number of members, only that it could be the case.

25.  Here's the proof everyone on the forum loves Xei: If you don't love him, I'll come after you during the night. See? Instant success.

Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 ... Last

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•